Might it have a reverse effect and cause Parliament to be more anti-colonial? Fighting a war for 'independence' in a far away land is one thing, and easier to sympathize with. But attacking and killing British men IN England itself? Might be a public outrage.
mowque
That's what I just replied to someone else who asked a similar question, which I got to 1st.
Given how controlled war generally was at the time [at least in 'civilised' areas] and the degree of sympathy felt for some of the rebels until then there would probably be a strong reaction against the atrocity. At worst it might be the case of the gloves coming off and replying in kind in areas under rebel control.
Whether such a small force could commit such a slaughter is also doubtful. Even if, as is probably likely, most of the 200 ships were only small fishing vessels that is likely to mean the attackers would be heavily outnumbered and the owners and crew are unlikely to stand by while their livelihoods are destroyed by a bunch of pirates. Hence possibly the most likely outcome is a bloody fight with the surviving rebels being summarily hung before any authorities reach the area.
Steve